10th Amendment

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Alas, the body's contents do not have personal sovereignty or equal protection until the government giveth to it.

When those contents can live lives separate and apart from that body, they have all the Natural Rights of anybody else.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When those contents can live lives separate and apart from that body, they have all the Natural Rights of anybody else.

In your opinion, do polygamists have a natural right to marry? What about those who want to marry an animal? Do they have a natural right to do so?

What about a church that does not want to marry a gay couple, based upon religious doctrine. Do they have a natural right not to marry the couple, or should they be targed by the state for bigotry and violating the couples natural rights?

Originally posted by whodey
In your opinion, do polygamists have a natural right to marry? What about those who want to marry an animal? Do they have a natural right to do so?

What about a church that does not want to marry a gay couple, based upon religious doctrine. Do they have a natural right not to marry the couple, or should they be targed by the state for bigotry and violating the couples natural rights?

Not sure. No. No.

A Church doesn't have "rights" but the principles underlining the 1st Amendment say that one doesn't have to marry anybody they don't want to.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not sure. No. No.

A Church doesn't have "rights" but the principles underlining the 1st Amendment say that one doesn't have to marry anybody they don't want to.

You are not sure if polygamists have a natural right to marry? Why? You do believe that gays have a natural right to marry, right?

As for those that will want to marry an animal, why do they not have a natural right? Do you suppose that animals we can use as beasts of burden, lock up in zoos, and slaughter to eat have any particular rights themselves that supercede the natural right to marry them?

Originally posted by whodey
You are not sure if polygamists have a natural right to marry? Why? You do believe that gays have a natural right to marry, right?

As for those that will want to marry an animal, why do they not have a natural right? Do you suppose that animals we can use as beasts of burden, lock up in zoos, and slaughter to eat have any particular rights themselves that supercede the natural right to marry them?

I've already told you I haven't been presented with the arguments of those who say there is a governmental "compelling interest" regarding polygamy laws. Unlike you, I don't make judgments without some idea of the arguments on both sides.

Bestiality is a tiresome off-ramp that you and others have brought up hundreds of times and have been answered in full hundreds of times. Marriage is a contract and animals lack the capacity to consent to contracts. Therefore, they cannot enter into a marriage, a lease agreement, etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've already told you I haven't been presented with the arguments of those who say there is a governmental "compelling interest" regarding polygamy laws. Unlike you, I don't make judgments without some idea of the arguments on both sides.

Bestiality is a tiresome off-ramp that you and others have brought up hundreds of times and have been answered in ...[text shortened]... nt to contracts. Therefore, they cannot enter into a marriage, a lease agreement, etc. etc. etc.

I don't get the argument that gays should marry because they have a natural right to marry, but when it comes to polygamists we need a compelling state interest to justify it?

What is the compelling state interest to allow gays to marry?

As for animals, who says they need to consent? Animals are included in legal arrangements all the time.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't get the argument that gays should marry because they have a natural right to marry, but when it comes to polygamists we need a compelling state interest to justify it?

What is the compelling state interest to allow gays to marry?

As for animals, who says they need to consent? Animals are included in legal arrangements all the time.

You don't need a "compelling State interest" to ALLOW someone to do something; you need a "compelling State interest" to PREVENT someone from doing something that involves a right. The fact that the opponents of same-sex marriage could not come up with one is why they lost.

I'm not discussing bestiality anymore; my post's answer is sufficient.

EDIT: The legal term for the test is "strict scrutiny". From wiki:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/polygamy-attorney-on-gay-marriage-decision-scotus-opinion-resonates-with-our-arguments/#ixzz3eGuqBL00

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.
“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”
Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations. It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society. That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”

He added, “The important thing though is to recognize that the question in our case is closer to the issue resolved by the Supreme Court ten years ago for gay couples in striking down the criminalization of homosexual relationships.”

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in August of 2014 Utah’s ban on polygamy violated the First and 14th Amendments. Similarly, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage also pointed to the 14th Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, stated, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”

Academic Frederick deBoer writes in Politico Magazine how the Supreme Court’s decision opens the doors for legal polygamous marriages.
“The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on ‘traditional marriage’ arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same.”

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not sure. No. No.

A Church doesn't have "rights" but the principles underlining the 1st Amendment say that one doesn't have to marry anybody they don't want to.

Refuse to call it a right if you wish, but churches (as well as all individuals) are protected from the government by the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


But hey, I guess the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Presidential Decrees, Court Decisions and laws passed by Agencies. It only applies to Congress.

Originally posted by Eladar
Refuse to call it a right if you wish, but churches (as well as all individuals) are protected from the government by the 1st Amendment.

[b]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and t ...[text shortened]... Presidential Decrees, Court Decisions and laws passed by Agencies. It only applies to Congress.

So why is it no one does not have to marry someone but they do have to make them a cake?

I could easily see SCOTUS turn this around to say that refusing to marry people is a violation of the 14th amendment, while accusing them of a hate crime for speaking out against gay sex.

Originally posted by Eladar
Refuse to call it a right if you wish, but churches (as well as all individuals) are protected from the government by the 1st Amendment.

[b]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and t ...[text shortened]... Presidential Decrees, Court Decisions and laws passed by Agencies. It only applies to Congress.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, that's exactly what I said.

So you like to quibble over words, that's nothing new.

Originally posted by whodey
So why is it no one does not have to marry someone but they do have to make them a cake?

I could easily see SCOTUS turn this around to say that refusing to marry people is a violation of the 14th amendment, while accusing them of a hate crime for speaking out against gay sex.

I'm sure you could see it since you're a complete idiot.

Why are you sooooooooooo opposed to State laws banning discrimination against gays? I thought you were a big defender of "States Rights". Doesn't the Tenth Amendment mean that the States can pass laws regulating businesses inside that State and ban them from discriminating against certain groups if the State choses?

Are you familiar with the term "hoisted on your own petard"?